MISSION

THE R.I.S.E. PRINCIPLES

ABOUT FJI

Freedom's Journal Institute is a 501(C)(3) organization devoted to the research, education, and the advancement of public policy that promotes: Responsible government, Individual liberty and fidelity, Strong Family Values, and Economic Empowerment (R.I.S.E Principles), with a biblical perspective.

MISSION

THE R.I.S.E. PRINCIPLES

ABOUT FJI

Freedom's Journal Institute is a 501(C)(3) organization devoted to the research, education, and the advancement of public policy that promotes: Responsible government, Individual liberty and fidelity, Strong Family Values, and Economic Empowerment (R.I.S.E Principles), with a biblical perspective.

Members

Member Directory

Who Needs Laws? Eliminate Police Department

What? More stories in the news about “police brutality”?

I, for one, am so tired of hearing how cops are out of control. Let me propose a simple solution that will simply and permanently eliminate “police brutality.” This proposal would apply equally to all local, state and federal law enforcement officials. It would immediately and permanently eliminate all traces of racism and allow for all crimes to be reported equally, regardless of perpetrator.

This solution would affect almost every American citizen regardless of age, race, creed, financial or religious status. In addition, it would literally save billions of dollars currently being spent on police forces, courts and prisons, and eliminate any hint of concern regarding capital punishment.

The solution? Abolish all laws, and eliminate the police departments.

Since there would be no laws to break, there would be no need for police enforcement. Additionally, courts would be abolished because there would be no laws to interpret. Without laws to be broken, there would be no need for prisons because there would be no criminals to incarcerate.

We could do away with all these stupid laws about how fast we can drive; hey, if my car will do 120 mph and I want to “put the pedal to the metal,” why not? Why can’t I park anywhere and everywhere I choose and take whatever I want whenever, from wherever and whomever I want? After all, why should my liberties be circumscribed just because you disagree with what I want to do?

I mean, whose idea was it to implement laws in the first place? (I know I didn’t have anything to do with most of the laws that govern my behavior.) Why should I be held in check, and kept from doing what I want to do, just because you disagree with it? Anyway, who says the guys who passed those laws to begin with were right? Since I may disagree with them, why should I be restrained by some people I never met or heard of?

You know, we have to keep in mind – not everybody wants to live like you think they should. They have their own ideas of how life ought to be lived. I mean, after all, you probably would not like to have some Middle East concept of “morality” about how to treat women forced on you by the “powers that be.” And, didn’t we just read about some guys in the Middle East and Africa raping a group of young girls? So, what’s wrong with grabbing some “hot babe” and dragging her into an alley and “taking care of business”? And why is everybody jumping on Bill Cosby just because he “worked out” with some babes? “So what? If you don’t agree with it, then just don’t do it, but why should you try to impose your opinion on somebody else just because you disagree?”

Since it is manifestly obvious that many disagree with certain laws, they would now be free to operate according to the dictates of “conscience.” Just imagine, everyone being able to do exactly what they want, the way they want. So what if what they want interferes with your right to live life the way you want? I mean, after all, isn’t freedom all about everybody being able to do whatever they want, any way they want?

We could implement the concept articulated in the book of Judges contained in the Bible. At one stage in the development of the nation of Israel, such a concept was in force. It was stated thusly; “Every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” Can’t you just visualize the liberty and freedoms available to every person under that concept? Of course, it led to some serious interpersonal problems, but what the heck, “If it feels good do it,” right?

Or have we missed something here?

You recognize, of course, the tongue-in-cheek aspect of the preceding. We are, and should be, held responsible for our actions. Absent such accountability, We the People would be lost to our own self-ascribed concepts of “freedom,” as others who have gone before.

Could it be that “law enforcement” was/is designed to provide the maximum amount of protection to the greatest number of people? What is the definition of “law enforcement”? Why do we have emergency 9-1-1? How do we define “illegal”? Based on what? Shouldn’t citizens be required to obey the laws of the land?

The laws of the land governing most of Western civilization, and America in particular, are based on the Judeo-Christian precepts articulated in the Bible. These laws are designed to provide maximum liberty and protection to the greatest number of people.

Could it be that the amazing world-renowned institution known as the “United States of America” owes its world leadership and world-emulated individual freedoms to such founding concepts as: “What is liberty without virtue? It is madness, without restraint” (Edmund Burke, Founding Father).

Like this:

Related

Default Comments (0)

Facebook Comments (0)

Disqus Comments (0)

http-freedomsjournalinstitute-org

Author

Ben Kinchlow is a minister, broadcaster, author and businessman. He was the long-time co-host of CBN's "The 700 Club" television program and host of the international edition of the show, seen in more than 80 countries. He is the founder of Americans for Israel and the African American Political Awareness Coalition, and the author of several books.